Thoughts on NASA and the near future of space exploration

I posted the following reply in the NASA discussion group on LinkedIn. The original post was soliciting thoughts on the changes in priorities for NASA in response to the president's budget request.

The Constellation program was canceled because this administration was unwilling to continue investing many billions of dollars a year to develop a whole new launch capability that would not be ready for 7 to 10 years. For this investment, we would get two new rockets that would never have a very high flight rate, and thus would be extremely expensive to operate. That high cost of development was literally starving many innovative science and engineering efforts currently underway, or planned for the near future. The high cost of operations would mean that this situation would continue into the indefinite future. This was a bargain that this administration was no longer willing to make... not when there appeared to be a viable alternative.

This alternative has just as much of a chance of success as the Constellation program, but also requires much less investment and has the potential to offer much greater capacity and redundancy to the US spaceflight capability. NASA is getting a net increase in budget, and the freedom to spend it on actual innovative research and development projects. Some of this research will vastly improve our ability to carry out long duration spaceflight missions, while other research would dramatically improve our understanding of the Earth, and our environment.

As for science on the ISS: The president's budget actually extends the life of the station until at least 2020 - further improving the chances of doing useful science on the station. The SpaceX Dragon capsule is being designed to provide a significant amount of down mass capability for the ISS. Although the Cygnus transport will not initially be able to support this capability, Orbital has made some encouraging remarks regarding their plans to upgrade the Cygnus craft to have reentry capabilities. The ESA has also made similar comments about their ATV modules.

I agree that our backs are up against the wall with regards to the ability of the US to independently access space. But perhaps this sense of urgency will prompt more commercial providers to finally step up to the plate and start investing their own resources in developing this domestic capability - with an appropriate amount of assistance and investment from NASA. However, at the same time, NASA has to back off a little bit and let them develop these systems to the best of their abilities.

No one is suggesting that we immediately start putting astronauts on these new vehicles. (Not like they did for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, and what they were planning on doing for Orion.) From what I've heard, each new entrant and each new system will have to be proven out over a number of unmanned test flights and/or cargo flights before NASA will consider using them for human transport. This seems both fair and prudent.

Will it be dangerous? Yes. Will their be risk? Yes, of course. There always has been and their always will be. However, if it's an endeavor worth pursuing, then you do you best to mitigate the risk and to plan for all of the contingencies that you can imagine. In the end, though, you have to accept the whatever risks remain and just fly the vehicles that you have.

There will be failures, but we will learn from them. There will be deaths, but not by anyone who wasn't fully aware of the risks. They will choose to go, and when they fall, there will still be others lined up waiting to go. For them, it will be the chance to pursue a dream, and the opportunity to push back the boundaries of science and exploration. If you build it, they will most certainly come.

We industrialize!

Now this is the kind of space advocacy that might actually have a chance of appealing to ordinary folks.



There are none of the supposed "justifications" for the space program that NASA contrived a couple of years ago. There's simply a catchy tune, some simple graphics, and a message. That message is that space offers a tremendous opportunity for us to put our ingenuity and productivity to work towards creating a new and innovative economic niche. This niche is one that has yet to be exploited, has tremendous potential for future growth, and one that we appear to be in a rather unique position to take of advantage of at this very moment.

What will we do with this opportunity? Will we continue to throw good money after bad at sectors of the economy which have failed to generate enough wealth to sustain their own activities? Or do we take bold new steps to generate new industries and new services that will form the basis for the next century of economic growth?

A Biological Imperative

Every few months, the debate over humans in space seems to flare up again. The motivations for human spaceflight are usually touched on briefly while reflecting on the loss of the astronauts of the Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia spacecraft. Sometimes the discussion is sparked by the humans vs. robots debate. Other times it shows up while attempting to justify the human spaceflight budget. Depending on the context and the participants, the discussion can be anywhere from cordial to an outright flame war.

Jeff Foust recently posted a fairly innocuous summary of reactions to the new administration's budget request (Reacting to the budget proposal - Space Politics) which has somehow managed to stir up a fair amount of discussion in its comments. Unfortunately, by the time I got around to reading through it, some of the comments had already began devolving into pointless bickering.

Of course, I felt compelled to post some of my own thoughts. I am reposting them here for my own benefit, and in case anyone would like to discuss them away from the flames of the other post.

Human space exploration is not about science, or even exploration for that matter. These things are a consequence - a side effect - of having humans in space. In fact, science and exploration are a consequence of humans being just about anywhere, including the bottom of the ocean or in caves dozens of kilometers below the surface. Humans will make observations (either directly or through remote probes), form hypotheses, test them, and then find a way to exploit the results somehow. That's what humans do.

The question on everyone's mind is "Why?" Why do we go to all of these extreme places (in person and with probes)? The answer is quite simple: niche exploitation and expansion. It's a biological imperative. We do what biological organisms have always done: expand to fill an available niche, exploit resources where possible, and then search for new niches to fill. In every biological population, there are individuals or groups which make it their purpose to accomplish each of these tasks. Humans are particularly adept at this and are doing so at an unprecedented rate.

What makes humans so special is that they are the first species capable of expanding the biosphere beyond the surface of the Earth. Humans alone are capable of taking this simple biological imperative out into the universe; exploiting the resources found there, remaking the environment to sustain themselves, and always pressing forward. It is for this purpose that the robotic probes are made and sent out in advance; and that robotic machines are being created to assist humans in hostile environments. It is also for this reason that we cannot send robotic probes alone.

In a way these thoughts are complementary to those I have posted previously (Why Space? and Not Just Science). I find that my thoughts have evolved somewhat since then. I have been trying to come to a better understanding of what it is that space advocates are trying to articulate when they give the 'basic human need to explore' argument. Although most space advocates feel this in their bones, they usually fail to give an adequate explanation of this feeling to those who do not necessarily share their passion for space. I'm not saying that my comments above will go much further at bringing this point home to the average Joe. However, I do feel that if we can get past our own personal motivations and cast human spaceflight in a broader context, we may eventually be able to convince others that it is well worth the expense.

ISDC 2007 - Day One

Well, I figure I should report my impressions of day one at the International Space Development Conference before I read any one else's , and while it's still somewhat fresh in my mind.

First of all, I have a little gripe. The traffic in and around Dallas is a nightmare. I don't know how it stacks up against other major metropolitan areas, but I've been stuck in Dallas traffic for a total of five hours now, and I've only been here two days. From what I'm beginning to learn from some locals is that the conference location at the Hotel Intercontinental could not be in a worse location as far as commuting goes. Hopefully the weekend traffic will be more merciful, although I'm skeptical since it is Memorial Day weekend.

I did get to see Shannon Lucid and Don Pettit give their presentation in the morning. During and after the lunch break I spent some time talking with folks in the halls and at the displays. This is the first ISDC I have attended, and really my first space related conference. So, it was fun talking to other people who are as passionate about space as I am.

The presentation by Drs. Lucid and Pettit was mostly about the mindset of living and working on the frontier. As both of them have been on long duration missions (six months on Mir for Dr. Lucid, and six months on ISS for Dr. Pettit), they have a unique perspective on life on the new frontier. Dr. Pettit has also recently taken part in a trek across Antarctica looking for meteorites; a journey which he paralleled with his stay on the ISS.

The pair discussed many different aspects of frontier life, but the one I was most interested in was the science of opportunity discussed by Dr. Pettit. He described the ISS and Antarctica as non-intuitive environments: places where everyday can bring new and unexpected experiences. In these environments, discoveries are just waiting to be made.

I wish he would have spent more time talking about those moments of discovery. In my opinion, this is one of the most important reasons why we are sending people into space. Most of the low-hanging fruit, in terms of scientific discovery, have been picked. To make new discoveries, someone has to study new phenomena, or possibly even well known phenomena in new environments. On Earth, this requires spending increasing large amounts to create these new environments in particle accelerators. However, their are many things about the universe that we take for granted just simply because we experience them every day. These things become part of our intuition and typically get pushed to the back of minds. By experiencing the non-intuitive environments, as Dr. Pettit describes, "...we can become children again, and experience the world with a child's curiosity". (quote paraphrased)

After lunch, I got to spend some time talking with James Bauer of Armadillo Aerospace. It is truly amazing what this small group has been able to accomplish. I can't help but think of Steve Wozniack hacking together the first Apple computers in his garage and the effect that effort had on the world of computing. I think that John Carmack and his team are poised to do the same thing for the world of rocketry.

Yes, Pixel was on display, and I got to tell you that this is an impressive machine. It's impressive mostly because it looks so simple. I've been to several Air & Space museums and have seen some of the rocket engines developed by and for NASA. Those things are a maze of wires and tubes and components. I think you really have to know what you are looking at to truly appreciate their design. However, Pixel is the very model of simplicity. I'm not trying to trivialize their work. I think the simplicity of their design is brilliant. Less parts means less things that could fail, which means (or could mean) greater reliability. It also means that they are cheaper and easier to build than your typical rocket engine; a feature the they intend to capitalize on as they move towards building their modular rocket design.

I also had the opportunity to talk with Tom Ligon of Energy Matter Conversion Corporation (EMC²). I've got to say that the system he is describing seems almost too good to be true. He claims that the power output of the fusor reactor scales with the seventh power of reactor radius. I asked him if there were any upper limits to this scaling. He replied that Dr. Bussard has thus far only considered reactor designs up to 6 meters in diameter. That is an enormous amount of energy. We're talking about 6 GW out of a roughly 6 meter diameter reactor (if I'm remembering correctly), and the output goes straight to DC; no more heat water turn turbine.

When someone makes that kind of prediction and only has preliminary experimental data to back it up, I can understand why it would meet with some skepticism. Still, if they are successful, this technology could literally change the world. Given that potential, I don't see why they would have any difficulty raising a couple of hundred million dollars they need to definitively establish its viability. But that's just it. I get the sense that the effort is strapped for cash. I have seen bigger grants awarded to academic institutions to conduct basic research. So, I can't help but think that there may be other factors at work behind the scenes.

Anyway, that's all for now. I try to post more in the next couple of days as I have time.

Mars Rovers on the Futures Channel

Just got an email update from the Futures Channel. They have a new short film up on the Mars Rovers.

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/hands-on_math/reliable_robots/index.php

Two of the engineers who work on designing robotic rovers discuss what it takes to make a robotic system which is reliable and robust enough to send to the most remote destinations. If any one part of it fails, the rest of the systems should still be able to carry on in some fashion to complete the mission.

While it's true that if something goes wrong there's nobody around to fix it, I can't help but wonder if it would be all that difficult to build an independent micro-repair-bot that would piggy-back on the rover. (Think R2-D2 from Star Wars, or DRD's from Farscape, but smaller.) Then if something should fail on the rover, the ground controllers would have a means for getting a detailed report on the status of the robot. It could do some basic maintenance (like clearing dust off of the solar arrays, or removing a rock jammed in the wheels), or possibly more sophisticated (like replacing or bypassing a failed electronic component).

When we get to the point when the robots that we send out into the cosmos are adaptable, reconfigurable, and repairable without requiring human presence, then we may begin to see some interesting possibilities for what can be accomplished by robotic explorers. Until then, they will continue to be simple extensions of our own senses, mere tools with which we manipulate the universe.

Go up young man!

I remember thinking a few years ago that space settlement would never become a practical reality until we had the equivalent of the Conestoga wagon. The wagon provided an economical means for transporting people and large amounts of cargo over difficult terrain. The fact that these vehicles were inexpensive to own and operate meant that a wide variety of people could use them for a wide variety of purposes. Commerce naturally ensued which, in turn, enabled rapid settlement to occur by providing a means to transport essential goods and supplies to those who chose to make a living on the frontier and would eventually call it home.

These thoughts returned to me recently while considering the successful launch and operation of the Genesis module by Bigelow Aerospace. It suddenly seemed obvious to me that the modules currently being designed and built by Bigelow Aerospace could very well be the predecessors of the modern equivalent to the Conestoga wagon. The only thing missing is a reliable propulsion module which can be maintained and refueled in space. Judging by some of the graphics depicted on the Bigelow Aerospace website, they may have had this sort of application in mind for future development.

I have more thoughts on other applications for Bigleow's inflatable structures as well as the use of flexible, yet very durable, building materials for construction of large scale structures in space. Hopefully I'll be able to get my thoughts organized before the servers at work come back up and I get sucked back into my research.